ON INDIA, HINDU, HINDUISM, & PAKISTAN

Opinion  ON INDIA, HINDU, HINDUISM, & PAKISTAN "Hindu/India" (derived from the word "Sindhu" in present day Pakistan  --- by the way, the people of Sindhu continue to call themselves "Sindhis" and not "Hindus/Indians") was exclusively the foreign geographic term for Indus Valley (Pakistan region) in ancient times. It had nothing to do with the religion of Hinduism nor the region of present day India. This is proven in the Achaemenian inscriptions at Persepolis and Greek texts like those of Herodotus. It was many centuries later that the term "Hind/India" was used by some foreigners to further encompass much of South Asia, again as a geographic term having no religious or national meaning. The broadening of this term's usage was no different than how the word "Farangi" (derived from the word "Franks/France") became the term for all Europeans used by Middle Easterners (and South Asians) during the Middle Ages due to French interaction (Crusaders) with them. Indus Valley is located at the entering point (from west) into South Asia, thus its geographic term was later used by a few foreign visitors and invaders for the whole region. However, others used 'Hind' for present day north India and 'Sindh' for present day Pakistan. The bottomline is that the term/word "Hind/Hindu/India" was foreign (for their own references), and had no religious or national meaning. It was no different than how the words "Africa" and "America" are used --- i.e. foreign geographic terms encompassing many different peoples and religions.  Not a single South Asian text/inscription (Vedic, Buddhist, Brahmanic, Dravidic, etc.) mentions any word "Hindu/Hinduism/India". It was only with the arrival of Muslim invaders (Ghorids --- 12th century AD) that the foreign term "Hindu/Hindustan" was imposed in South Asia to denote its ruled subjects and lands. It was also starting from this period that the word "Hindu" started to gain a religious color. It was easy for the new invaders to differentiate their religion from the countless local ones with just a single word. Later on, with the arrival of the British, their introduced term "Hinduism" became widely in use. The foreign word "Hinduism" simply became the term for many different local religions of South Asia. Hinduism is a meaningless term and concept  in the sense that it can include any thing or nothing. Contradictory or opposing aspects are quite common in it, and as quoted by many scholars it cannot be truly defined. Hinduism as a "civilization of Hindus" is another hollow definition in the same way "Western civilization" can include many different religions, peoples, nations, regions, etc. To say "Hinduism" has been evolving since ancient times is a farce as the term/word itself has recent origins, and humans and their ideas/beliefs have been evolving since time-immemorial all over the world. For example, if Christianity has some influences from Roman Paganism it does not mean that Christianity evolved from Roman Paganism because the word/term "Christianity" was invented later on and Christianity's beliefs/practices are by large distinct.  As far as present-day India is concerned, the fact is it was created one day after Pakistan's creation! Pakistan was created by the Pakistanis themselves. On the other hand, the British colonialists conquered the various countries/peoples/kingdoms of South Asia and for the ease of administration consolidated them into a single unit called "India". No country with such name or/and size existed prior to its British creation. With the departure of British, their colonies were divided with present day India being a direct descendent of that British creation.  In the words of Winston Churchill, "India is no more a country than the Equator". It is no wonder there are many separatist movements in India, having many distinct nations, races, languages, cultures, religions, histories,etc. A Tamil  is racially as different from a Kashmiri as is an Ethiopian from an Italian. A Naga is culturally as different from an Bihari as is a Chinese  from a Argentinian. A Gujarati is linguistically as different from an Andhra (Telugu) as is a German from an Arab. Such extreme differences are common place among the so called Indians with barely any unifying factors. On the other hand, Pakistanis have all the commonality being linguistically Indo-Iranian, racially mostly Caucasoid, geographically based around Indus Valley, sharing a common history/culture, and adhering to the faith of Islam. Pakistan might be a few decades old, but the land and its people have a history dating back to thousands of years. Indus Valley Civilization is their heritage, the continuity is obvious in many aspects of their culture and race, absorbing and/or adopting the many different waves of migrants/invaders throughout the centuries.Pakistanis are a blend of their heritage of Harappans, Rig Vedic Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Kushans, Hephthalites, Arabs,Turks, and Moguls. Pakistan---the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries also recently created) inherits their own great ancient civilizations. It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now mostly Muslims! Similarly, descendents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, and descendents of ancients Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians! And also, just because the once Christian Syrians are now mostly Muslims, it does not mean that Nigerian Christians can claim the heritage of Syria today! Just because China was mostly Buddhist it does not mean that Chinese civilization is part of Indian heritage. Same logic applies between Pakistan's Buddhist past and today's Hindu India. Or just because once Syria and Spain were briefly united under the ancient Romans and Arabs it does not mean Syria's heritage belongs to Spain. Same logic applies between Pakistan and India under the rule of British, Turko-Afghan Muslims, etc. And just because today a country is named "South Africa" it does not mean it can claim the heritage of all southern Africa. Same logic applies between Pakistan and India's monopoly over the British geographic/colonial term/word "India". The region of Pakistan was never part of present day region of India except for 100 years under the Mauryans, 522 years under the Muslims, and 100 years under the British. These are historical facts that no one can deny! Most Indians have no right to claim the heritage of Pakistan (Indus Valley Civilization, Rig Vedic Aryans, Gandharan Civilization, etc.) because the region was rarely part of India, with its mostly distinct religion, culture, language, and race since ancient times! Why should a Tamil (Indian) claim the heritage of a Punjabi (Pakistani)? Or why should a Vishnuvite of Bengal (Indian) claim the heritage of Kalasha's Kafirs of NWFP (Pakistanis) or Buddhist ancestors of Sindhi Muslims (Pakistanis)? And let's say, even if the ancestor of a Pakistani was Shaivite, that does not mean that Shaivites of Indonesia can claim the heritage of Pakistan. Or, if Pakistan region/people were once mostly Buddhist, it does not mean that Buddhist Japanese are the same people as Pakistanis.